559 F. App'x 975 (11th Cir. 2014)

From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tillman v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Apr 4, 2014

559 F. App'x 975 (11th Cir. 2014)

Summary

holding that the failure to specifically refer to two medical opinions was harmless because it "did not affect the result in Tillman's case"

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Saul

See 25 Summaries

Opinion

No. 13-14340 D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-00969-DAB

04-04-2014

ANTONIO TILLMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Respondent-Appellee.

PER CURIAM

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

Non-Argument Calendar

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

Before HULL, MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Antonio Tillman appeals the district court's order affirming the Social Security Administration's denial of his application for supplemental security income. He contends the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred by failing to explicitly assign weight to the opinions of two emergency room physicians, each of whom examined him and commented on his alleged disability. He also complains that the ALJ failed to give those opinions sufficient weight in his disability evaluation. After careful review, we conclude Tillman's arguments fail, and we therefore affirm.

In a Social Security appeal, we affirm the Commissioner's decision if it "is supported by substantial evidence and based on proper legal standards." Winschel v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 631 F.3d 1176, 1178 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Tillman first faults the ALJ for failing to explicitly assign weight to the opinions of doctors Ullah and Subhani, who treated Tillman during his hospitalization following a stroke in 2006. Ordinarily, an ALJ's failure to explain the particular weight given to the different medical opinions provided is reversible error. Sharfarz v. Bowen, 825 F.2d 278, 279 (11th Cir. 1987). However, when the ALJ's error did not affect its ultimate findings, the error is harmless, and the ALJ's decision will stand. See Diorio v. Heckler, 721 F.2d 726, 728 (11th Cir. 1983). In the instant case, the ALJ expressly noted and considered the diagnostic evidence on which Ullah and Subhani relied in forming their opinions, and that evidence, along with other objective medical evidence in the record and Tillman's own testimony, showed that he was not disabled and incapable of work. For example, Ullah opined that Tillman was "severely disabled" and "unable to function independently," but he did not offer any detailed explanation supporting this opinion, and when Tillman was discharged only days after Ullah's examination, his symptoms were stable, and he had been ambulating "quite safely" with the use of a cane. Moreover, Ullah's and Subhani's opinions concerned matters ultimately reserved to the Commissioner for final determination (i.e., whether Tillman was legally disabled) and were therefore not entitled to controlling weight. See 20 C.F.R §§ 404.1527(d)(1)-(3), 416.927(d)(1)-(3); Caulder v. Bowen, 791 F.2d 872, 878 (11th Cir. 1986). Thus, while we acknowledge the ALJ's failure to specifically reference the opinions of Ullah and Subhani, we conclude that this failure did not affect the result in Tillman's case.

For the same reasons, we conclude that the ALJ did not accord Ullah's and Subhani's opinions too little weight. Given the totality of the evidence presented and Tillman's own testimony concerning the activities he regularly performed, it is clear that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's decision to discount the opinions of Ullah and Subhani, which spoke to matters ultimately reserved to the Commissioner, were conclusory and based on limited underlying relationships with Tillman, and were contradicted by other evidence in the record.

AFFIRMED.

Summaries of

Tillman v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Apr 4, 2014

559 F. App'x 975 (11th Cir. 2014)

holding that the failure to specifically refer to two medical opinions was harmless because it "did not affect the result in Tillman's case"

Summary of this case from Simmons v. Saul

holding that the ALJ's failure to explicitly assign weight to two doctors' opinions on matters reserved to the Commissioner was not error where the doctors' records and other evidence contradicted the doctors' opinions

Summary of this case from McDonald v. Acting Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin.

holding that failure to explicitly assign weight to doctor's opinion was not error where doctor's records and other evidence contradicted those opinions

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Berryhill

holding that medical opinions concerning whether a claimant was legally disabled were not entitled to controlling weight because they concerned matters reserved to the Commissioner

Summary of this case from Blevins v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

holding ALJ's failure to specifically reference opinions of treating physicians was harmless error, where ALJ expressly noted and considered diagnostic evidence on which those physicians relied in forming their opinions, that evidence showed claimant was not disabled, and those opinions concerned matters ultimately reserved to the Commissioner for final determination

Summary of this case from Duckson v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

finding ALJ's failure to explain specific weight given to medical opinion harmless error where ALJ expressly noted and considered evidence in the record indicating that claimant was not disabled

Summary of this case from Jones v. Saul

finding failure to expressly assign weight to medical opinions concerning matters ultimately reserved for the Commissioner to be harmless error

Summary of this case from Ornis v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

finding the ALJ's failure to expressly weigh two medical opinions harmless because the ALJ expressly considered and discussed the evidence on which the doctors based their opinions

Summary of this case from Rodriguez v. Berryhill

finding the ALJ's failure to expressly weigh two medical opinions harmless because the ALJ expressly considered and discussed the evidence on which the doctors based their opinions

Summary of this case from Wimberley v. Berryhill, Acting Comm’r SSA

finding ALJ's failure to explicitly assign weight to two treating physicians was harmless

Summary of this case from Green v. Colvin

finding harmless error to fail to give weight to opinions where opinions offered by doctors concerned matters ultimately reserved for the Commissioner

Summary of this case from Berrios v. Colvin

finding that the ALJ's failure to explain the weight given to a medical opinion "did not affect the result in [claimant's] case," and specifically noting that the medical source in question "did not offer any detailed explanation supporting opinion," and that the opinion "concerned matters ultimately reserved to the Commissioner for final determination"

Summary of this case from Dockery v. Colvin

recognizing harmless error analysis in the context of an ALJ's failure to address a treating source's opinion and concluding that "when the ALJ's error did not affect its ultimate findings, the error is harmless, and the ALJ's decision will stand"

Summary of this case from Palencia v. Saul

recognizing harmless error analysis in the context of an ALJ's failure to address a treating source's opinion

Summary of this case from Williams v. Saul

Summary of this case from Moctezuma v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Zayas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Mitchell v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Meyers v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Graham v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Harrah v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Summary of this case from Evans v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.